Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.

Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.

"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.

Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.

"They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.

The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.

The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; beatingadeadhorse; crevolist; crevorepublic; dover; enoughalready; evolution; itsbeendone; onetrickpony; played; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 551-561 next last
To: Thatcherite
"The fossil record crushingly supports this conclusion" No it doesn't.
But by all means, show me pictures of actual fossils which support your claim. Not hand drawn theory's. there is a difference you know.

There are no skull fossils that support progressive man either, although many fakes have been discovered. Different racial groups of man have different shaped skulls. That does not prove evlution.

recent discovered "young" galaxies are too old for the big bang theory. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Radioisotope and the Age of The Earth (RATE) scientists have discovered significant scientific evidence which contradicts the “old earth” model and supports a young earth.
“Thousands … Not Billions” is both the title and the theme of the upcoming national conference to be hosted by ICR at Shadow Mountain Community Church in El Cajon (near San Diego), California, November 5, 2005. Speakers for the event include Dr. John Morris (president of ICR), Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Andrew Snelling (formerly of AiG–Australia), and Dr. John Baumgardner and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.

This significant groundbreaking conference will be an opportunity to witness history in the making. Participants will discover the truth about conventional dating methods and why they do not prove an old earth. They will also learn why carbon-14 found in coal and diamonds offers convincing evidence confirming a young earth. These and other important recent discoveries will be introduced to the public at the conference, along with the premier showing of THOUSANDS … not BILLIONS, a new video documentary produced by ICR.

The research presented will once again demonstrate that the supposed “fact” of an old earth (i.e., billions of years) is not based on or supported by empirical science. “The results of this study are quite compelling,” states Mark Rasche, Director of Outreach and Resource Development at ICR.

This will no doubt get evolutionists in a kerfuffle.

Catastrophic plate tectonics theory answers many questions evolution theory just can't. Perhaps those who are so biased and stuck on evolution should open their minds rather than exclude everything which doesn't fit their impossible theories, which contradict each other so many times over.

301 posted on 09/29/2005 3:46:50 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

"Only on days ending in 'y'."

LOL - That's what I tell my wife when she asks if I'm planning on stopping off at the pub.

Side note: Have you noticed that Nathan and DK are never seen in the same room? I'll have to develop a hypothesis.


302 posted on 09/29/2005 3:48:02 PM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

"“Thousands … Not Billions” is both the title and the theme of the upcoming national conference..."

There you go again. Cutting and pasting sans attribution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0913RATE.asp


303 posted on 09/29/2005 3:53:43 PM PDT by stormer (Get your bachelors, masters, or doctorate now at home in your spare time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Second try...

The FACT is, Carbon dating is flawed, very inaccurate, and used only to bend time to fit the ridiculous theory of evolutionists

Did you even read my post #211 to you? I spent over an hour on it and it looks like your comments are identical to what you were saying before I posted.

Have you had time to read it or are you ignoring it?

304 posted on 09/29/2005 4:01:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (New tagline coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
This will no doubt get evolutionists in a kerfuffle.

Guy, this particular group of addled old creationists have been pushing their shtick for the last 20 years, and they've convinced nobody that wasn't convinced already. Baumgardner, while he claims before this audience that the earth is 6000 years old, puts his name on papers that track the earth's history over 100 million years. What a hypocrite! Other than disgracing themselves by helping promote the enemies of the United States in Turkey, they've had no impact whatsoever.

305 posted on 09/29/2005 4:05:46 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (Addictied to porn and loving it? Visit http://pretty.much.anywhere.on.the.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: stormer
Sorry, it just doesn't explain the distribution of things that never existed in the first place.

Where are my Nobel prizes? I deal with the here and now, actual things that can be designed and built. I should have recieved them for some of the stuff I have participated in designing. Theory is for professional students who never leave the classroom and get a real job.Those who get a 'prize for a theory which gets destroyed in a few years shouldn't get them. But, it's an old boys club, so what can you do.

You are quite correct however. Correct that many people throughout history have discovered things without a PhD. In fact these days, those coming out of college with PhD's don't seem to know much of anything except having a poor attitude and high opinions of themselves. Many of them end up sorting mail all their lives at the post office and become union activists.

I always get a laugh from those who say everything was created by nothing exploding, nothing being infinitely small, exploding to create the universe and everything in it. Everyone agrees that our universe had a beginning, But for some reason, GOD couldn't have created it all with his WORD.

Science explains our ordered and perfectly harmonious universe, kaos from a random explosion turning into the same requires more of a leap of faith than does creation; scientific theories supports creation much more easily than it does evolution. You need to ask yourself what is more of a blind faith religion.

306 posted on 09/29/2005 4:08:26 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 298 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
If you take note, evolutionists also study teeth in their efforts to establish evolution theory. So why would a person who studies biology of teeth and draw his conclusions on the side favoring creation be disqualified and the other not?

What is the typical experience of the average dentist in dealing with teeth not belonging to contemporary humans? How does this impart upon them sufficient information to refute the last 150 years of research in biology?

Another thing to note on this so called 'fossil record link, is that there are no actual fossil records

To deny the existence of a fossil record is to deny reality. Evolution is not falsified simply because you adamantly refuse to look at the real physical evidence that exists.
307 posted on 09/29/2005 4:11:56 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; Nathan Zachary; Ichneumon; King Prout
Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'll pay tribute to Ichneumon for the second time today with his truly inspired demonstration of fish-to-elephant in 50 "microevolutionary" baby steps.

Also, for the second time today, Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

Another compilation of well-documented examples: Intermediate and Transitional Forms.

The contention that there is no "fossel" record showing evolution reads like satire. Two last links and I'll stop.

The Fossil Record. A general discussion of just how good the fossil record is for evolution.

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. Discusses limitations of the record, what it nevertheless shows us, and how creationist pleadings from taxonomy (think "It's a BIRD! Just a BIRD!") are misguided.

308 posted on 09/29/2005 4:16:00 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Did you even read my post #211 to you? I spent over an hour on it and it looks like your comments are identical to what you were saying before I posted. Have you had time to read it or are you ignoring it?

I bet he didn't read it (going out on a limb). In the unlikely event he read it he didn't understand it. And in any event, it wouldn't make any difference.

But I'll extend a thanks for your effort.

309 posted on 09/29/2005 4:17:51 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: stormer

No, I just posted the information of the upcoming conference. but I guess if you want to call it cut and paste, go ahead, I fail to see what your point is.
Is that all you can do? You sure don't seen to be able to add anything of substance to support your position.


310 posted on 09/29/2005 4:18:11 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
You sure don't seen to be able to add anything of substance to support your position.

Hint: see my post #211

311 posted on 09/29/2005 4:19:26 PM PDT by Coyoteman (New tagline coming soon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Where are my Nobel prizes?

Maybe you can copy/paste yourself one.

312 posted on 09/29/2005 4:21:27 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

Do you suppose it could be so porous that it'd just run right through?

What we have here is a surface that actually repels anything poured on it.

313 posted on 09/29/2005 4:21:55 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

Macroevolution of life on earth is a scientific fact.


314 posted on 09/29/2005 4:22:13 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
What? You spent an hour cutting and pasting the same old drivel you keep repeating, which has been proved wrong a thousand times over?

There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD. What is it you can't seem to understand about that? Someones drawings, and comparing of two completely different species is NOT a fossil record, no matter how hard you click your heels together and make a wish.

315 posted on 09/29/2005 4:22:22 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; Nathan Zachary
First, you simply can't date live clams and get a reliable age.

Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever. Thus, the carbon indeed tends to be "old."

316 posted on 09/29/2005 4:23:44 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Did you even read my post #211 to you?

I read it. And thank you.

317 posted on 09/29/2005 4:25:30 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: All
I think we have a candidate for a "This is your brain on creationism" link. Now all I have to figure out is if it's worth the effort to it to add it to The List-O-Links.
318 posted on 09/29/2005 4:26:23 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

Watch that little weasely qualifier "possibly." If the jury comes back that it ain't science then it MUST be philosophy. Pick one or the other.

319 posted on 09/29/2005 4:29:50 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (No wonder the Southern Baptist Church threw Greer out: Only one god per church! [Ann Coulter])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
What? You spent an hour cutting and pasting the same old drivel you keep repeating, which has been proved wrong a thousand times over?

There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD. What is it you can't seem to understand about that? Someones drawings, and comparing of two completely different species is NOT a fossil record, no matter how hard you click your heels together and make a wish.

Sorry, son. That was not cut and paste, unlike your posts. That was out of my own research and experience. Thirty-five years worth. I did have two quotations which I attributed, but I verified the accuracy of those quotations myself; I didn't just grab them to fill space.

I actually think you are probably afraid to read post #211. You are probably afraid of learning something and then where would you be.

You have just forfeited all hope of any credibility on these threads. Several of us have spent time presenting you with evidence and all you do is ignore it. I certainly will never again pay any attention to anything you have to say pertaining to science.

(Actually there is a fossil record. In graduate school we had plaster or plastic casts of all the main fossils in the primate line, and got to spend hours with them. You just make a fool of yourself denying that these fossils exist.)

Bye, now.

320 posted on 09/29/2005 4:33:57 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: bvw

"Math isn't science?"

By itself, math is not science. Science uses math as a tool, but math itself is not science.


321 posted on 09/29/2005 4:35:33 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Oh, and the carbon dating stuff, there is alot more to prove it nothing more than a wild guess besides William Tripp's summary. It's just plain wrong. I didn't get around to posting any of it because the personal attacks started flowing from all you "mature" people.

If you want, I'll go step bystep and show you the error of your ways re #211 when i get home.

Ta-ta for now boys and girls.


322 posted on 09/29/2005 4:35:39 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

His response to #211, point by point, after he 'get's home', may make that decision easier.


323 posted on 09/29/2005 4:41:27 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Coyoteman; PatrickHenry
Nathan's going to show Coyoteman the error of his ways regarding carbon dating? Oh, this oughtta be gooood!

Patrick, if he does, you've got to include this in the List-O-Links!

Nathan, I don't think you realize just how many people you are entertaining right now. Thanks!

324 posted on 09/29/2005 4:43:30 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Coyoteman
If you want, I'll go step bystep and show you the error of your ways re #211 when i get home.

This I have to see.
325 posted on 09/29/2005 4:43:34 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas (Deity in training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
First, you simply can't date live clams and get a reliable age.

=======

Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever. Thus, the carbon indeed tends to be "old."

That is correct. See the Marine Reservoir Correction Database.

Shellfish can be readily calibrated by dating pre-bomb specimens and establishing a calibration curve.

However, the problem with live organisms still exists and renders recent samples unreliable. Even with the Marine Database I would not trust samples more recent than World War II.

326 posted on 09/29/2005 4:44:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
His response to #211, point by point, after he 'gets home', may make that decision easier.

It'll be a cut 'n paste dump from some creationoid website.

327 posted on 09/29/2005 4:45:25 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It'll be a cut 'n paste dump from some creationoid website.

Yeah, but the entertainment value alone makes this Must-See TV!

328 posted on 09/29/2005 4:49:42 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

If you want,

Nathan, just in case you need to be explicitly solicited, I want you to respond to #211, step by step.

329 posted on 09/29/2005 4:52:25 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Vive ut Vivas
"Exactly why it's stupid to draw philosophical implications from a scientific theory! They have nothing to do with each other!"

I suppose it all depends upon what is ones philosophical beliefs, in other words, what kind of a "GOD" does one believe there is.

Only wee little man can make such an declaration, as if the Heavenly Father does not exist and "science" or the origin of the flesh human being is out of His scope. But hey that is your choice.

"...and they're not going to get it from the theory of evolution. Or gravity. Or electrodynamics. These are not "foundations upon which to build their lives". I can just imagine the philosophy you'd extrapolate from quantum mechanics."


Oh really are you so wrapped into your method you cannot see what the implications are to young minds? You have no clue what I would extrapolate from quantum mechanics. What I know is that I am limited by gravity and a flesh body yet awareness that there is more to life than this flesh body. Flesh is but a mere necessary vehicle each soul is required to pass through.


"They don't even have anything to do with each other. By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?"

Whose definition are you using? You can repeat your mantra over and over and over til you turn blue in the face, just cause you say it and believe it does not make it true.

YOu can teach a child allllll about his/her body without ever saying once he/she descended from any other creature, because you have absolutely NO proof or evidence, merely a theory.

You can place the highest walls between God and His creation, but YOU have NO authority to make anyone believe your evolving theory. IT IS A SCAM the taxpayers are required to pay for.

Now I realize that evolutionists think so highly of themselves they do not need a "GOD", and that is your FREE choice, but when you start messing with little children's minds then there will be some accounting to be had. The evolutionists are like a pious bunch of tunneled brained entities who can see no further than their TOE!
330 posted on 09/29/2005 4:53:16 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I can hardly wait also. Especially since the reference I presented was "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Its on the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) website which is dedicated to:

Science in Christian Perspective The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Its actually a pretty good article, I enjoyed it and bookmarked it. (Thanks to whoever it was that posted that link earlier on this thread.)

Anyway, I think you probably have another addition to your famous List-O-Links coming.

331 posted on 09/29/2005 4:53:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Whales have been found to be a completely unique species.

Whales am not a "completely unique" (as in there's only one) species

332 posted on 09/29/2005 4:54:57 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: All

If I go out tonight, will you all promise me that the rebuttal will be here when I get back in the morning? I do not want to cancel my plans, and I'm sure it'll seem doubly funny later seeing as I'll probably be not at all sober.

Do not mess up this thread, it is classic, it is perfect


333 posted on 09/29/2005 4:56:24 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas (Deity in training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks to whoever it was that posted that link earlier on this thread.

I think it was Mr. Doctor Stochastic.

334 posted on 09/29/2005 4:57:53 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Vive ut Vivas

Try real hard to take care of your brain, the thread will hold its own.


335 posted on 09/29/2005 5:02:40 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Coyoteman; Nathan Zachary
Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever.

I think that particular Creationist "problems with Darwinism" claim references freshwater shellfish living in limestone rock pools.

336 posted on 09/29/2005 5:03:19 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Wiens article is already in The List-O-Links. Been there for years.
337 posted on 09/29/2005 5:04:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I like this crevo-Threads. Especially then people try to avoid to answer the last question.

"Just by reciting a dictionary has not demonstrated you even understand scientific theories,..." doc30

Answer?:
"And the way you obtained evidence of how inextensive my investigation of the subject is ... ?"GretchenM

Switch to another topic:
"I have studied the topic, including some of Darwin's own works. "GretchenM

and finally the try to stir some hornets: "Things got broken -- such as the land in earthquakes and floods -- and defective genes -- mutations -- became commonplace. God had the answer to bring all creation back to perfection, back to full relationship with Himself."GretchenM


Well, that are your believes GretchenM. But should this taught in a science class? What can you derive of ID except that ODIN exists? Please, mind the gaps! It's not scientific to say "RA is the answer" instead of saying "Well, at the monument we have really no idea why that happened but will search for an answer."
338 posted on 09/29/2005 5:06:51 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever.

====

I think that particular Creationist "problems with Darwinism" claim references freshwater shellfish living in limestone rock pools.

Limestone will do it. So will coal, asphaltum (tar), or bitumin. Lots of other things we have to watch out for. Its not rocket science but we do have to be careful in sample selection.

Marine shellfish ingest old deep-water carbon, but we can check our calibration and Delta-R by comparing shellfish and carbon from the exact same proveniences. That lets us be quite accurate.

339 posted on 09/29/2005 5:08:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Wiens article is already in The List-O-Links. Been there for years.

I was thinking of the detailed refutation that was promised for later tonight.

340 posted on 09/29/2005 5:10:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I guess the Doctor was just reminding me to do my homework.


341 posted on 09/29/2005 5:12:23 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I was thinking of the detailed refutation that was promised for later tonight.

Ah. But that, no doubt, is already posted at Answers in Genesis, or ICR, or one of the other fraud sites. However, I await the entertainment.

342 posted on 09/29/2005 5:12:49 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ah. But that, no doubt, is already posted at Answers in Genesis, or ICR, or one of the other fraud sites. However, I await the entertainment.

As do I, which I why I'm afraid of it being lost in the shuffle by the time I'm able to get back to my laptop again.

Oh well. See y'all.
343 posted on 09/29/2005 5:16:41 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas (Deity in training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I've found his reply: What about carbon dating? By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. A sample:
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
How many howlers can you find in those two sentences?
344 posted on 09/29/2005 5:19:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

No, it won't, but then we can always depend on your cut and paste crap can't we?
I can only assume I'm trying to talk to a bunch of children.
You may enjoy DU a little better. Everyone there will agree with you without question and make you feel good.


345 posted on 09/29/2005 5:20:54 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD. What is it you can't seem to understand about that? Someones drawings, and comparing of two completely different species is NOT a fossil record, no matter how hard you click your heels together and make a wish.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That is about the most asinine statement I have ever read on FR. Haven't you ever heard of museums, universities, fossil collections? Have you never seen or held a fossil in your own hands? Or just never wanted to? Just how stupid are you really or do you enjoy playing an anonymous retard on the internet?

346 posted on 09/29/2005 5:24:33 PM PDT by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

This one must be strong with the force.


347 posted on 09/29/2005 5:29:27 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out the other parts of the definition.

Those aren't "other parts of the definition," they're less-preferred definitions. In a dictionary, the numbers mean alternate definitions of a word. The smaller the number, the more common in useage. You tried to disprove the #1 definition by applying the #5 and #6 definitions. That's hardly a strong argument.

Besides, you're ignoring the fact that "theory" has one very specific meaning when it's in a scientific context. When used in science, theory doesn't mean "guess," it doesn't mean "untested or untried." It means that there is solid evidence to back it up. It means that it has been tested, and the evidence has backed it up.

When there are no facts to refute a theory, the theory is taken as an assumption for the most likely cause of something. When there are facts, the theory, to be scientifically acceptable, must be taught as a theory and it is essential to proper scientific practices to include other explanations.

Only if the other explanations are even vaguely scientific. ID isn't. If you can come up with an alternate theory that even begins to justify the scientific meaning of the word, then we'll add it to the curriculum.

We don't need facts to "refute" the theory. That's called proving a negative, and logically it can't be done. We need its proponents to show any evidence to support it. They are the ones making a positive claim, and it falls upon them to demonstrate the authenticity of their claim.

You keep speaking of "facts." Facts are very problematic for fans of ID, because there is decided lack of hard evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The only evidence is emotionalism and wishful thinking. People wanting it to be so is not evidence that it is.

There is strong, solid, real, physical evidence for evolution. We see it in action, we see it in the fossil record, it makes predictions, it is falsifiable and it gets more and more supported the more evidence we discover.

Try again when ID can rise above the #6 definition in your dictionary.

348 posted on 09/29/2005 5:38:43 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
That is about the most asinine statement I have ever read on FR. Haven't you ever heard of museums, universities, fossil collections?

I've got a rock wall outside my back door whose rocks are full of shellfish fossils. All somebody could think of to do with these rocks was to mortar them up into a wall. (Well, being sedimentary, they do tend to be flattened in shape.) Here's one I imaged directly on my scanner lately. (Yes, the wall IS falling apart and I should fix it.)

But, other than that, no. Nathan is right. There is no physical fossil record.
349 posted on 09/29/2005 5:38:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Festival of Howlers & Trolls placemarker


350 posted on 09/29/2005 5:43:16 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 551-561 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson